9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 1071X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals ["CIT(A)"] to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is bad in law and facts and liable to be quashed. 2. That on facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of the Learned Assessing officer ("the Learned AO") that tax ought to have been deducted at source in respect of year- end provisions debited to the profit and loss account. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) erred in disregarding the submission of the Appellant that the year-end provisions are made based on fair estimates in the light of applicable accounting standards and generally accepted accounting pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ircumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Learned AO on levy of interest under section 201(1A) of the Act. The assessee craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds, at any time before or at the time of hearing. Each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to the other grounds preferred by the assessee." 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: The assessee is a private limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale/licensing of active pharmaceutical ingredients and trading of certain pharma formations. 3. The Ld.ACIT, TDS Circle 3(1) initiated proceedings under section 201(1) of the Act, requiring assessee to show cause as to why, it should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has disallowed the said amount u/s 40(a)(ia) during the relevant period. It was also submitted that, such was a consistent approach followed by assessee from year to year basis. Assessee in support relied on the decision of Hon'able Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Eli Lilly & Co. (India) (P.) Ltd. reported in (2009) 178 taxman 505. 8. The Ld. CIT (A) after considering various decisions relied by the assessee decided the issue as under: "In view of the aforementioned arguments, judicial precedents and given that: * the Company has suo moto disallowed the amount under section 40(a)(ia) in the return of income; * the Company has also deducted and paid TDS in the next year; and * The Company has also paid the interest under section 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demonstrates that the Appellant did not have any malafide intention and it has reasonable cause for non-deduction of tax. The Appellant has relied on its own case i.e. Wipro GE Medical Systems Ltd. (supra) where the Bangalore ITAT has allowed relief to the Appellant where the amount of tax was already paid to the department and the interest under section 201(1A) of the Act for the period of non-deduction was also paid. Hence, there was no amount due to the government under section 201(1) of the Act and also there as reasonable cause for non-deduction of tax at source at the time of creating of provision. 9. Further the Ld.Counsel placed reliance on decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
